Abstract

Using hundreds of significant anomalies as testing portfolios, this paper compares the performance of major empirical asset pricing models. The q-factor model and a closely related five-factor model are the two best performing models among a long array of models. The q-factor model outperforms the five-factor model in factor spanning tests and in explaining momentum and profitability anomalies, but the five-factor model has an edge in explaining value-versus-growth anomalies. Investment and profitability, not liquidity, are the key driving forces in the broad cross section of expected stock returns.